phyllo wrote:On the other hand, Uccisore unnecessarily conceded some critical points and he was not able to show that you made a worthwhile contribution to the field of philosophy. I think that he should have pursued your reformulation of the Golden Rule. That is just convoluted and obscure enough to qualify as a worthwhile contribution.

Yeah, showing that he made a worthwhile contribution to philosophy was the harder of the two sides to demonstrate by far, since in all the ways that he imagines he's contributed something, he pretty clearly hasn't. I wanted to be sincere- I didn't want to take some point of his I thought was bullshit, like his weird golden rule formulation, and merely pretend it was worthwhile. The idea that somebody can contribute to a field through bad-example seems legit to me, and since Ec is pretty much the paradigmatic case of a bad philosopher, I went with it. There's a lot of points I could have made but I played conservative- since Ecmandu ignored the majority of my points, the better strategy seemed to reiterate them than to make even more points. I'd rather have one solid argument that never gets refuted than make a different argument every day, and open up the possibility that one has a vulnerability. Are there flaws in the arguments I made? Sure. I can think of a pretty crucial flaw in one of them in particular, but Ec didn't point any of them out, so in the context of the debate it's irrelevant.

The ironic thing about the debate is that Ec could have won very easily. He seems to think I was unfair to him. In fact, I gave him the side in the debate that everybody but him already agreed with. All he had to do was be honest for once in his life, and say "Look at my behavior guys. Look at all the mistakes I've made, look at all the nonsense I've spewed. Look at all the times I've had to be corrected on the most basic of things," and I would have conceded that he had the stronger case. But when instead of being honest he went the "I'm a fool in the sense everybody is, I've contributed nothing in the sense that nobody has," route, I knew that his admission of being a worthless fool (while nonetheless appreciated) would not ultimately satisfy me.

So things went I in a direction I like- the two sides of the debate are EITHER ecmandu is a worthless fool without any original ideas as he says, or else he merely appears to be a fool and that appearence is the only way he meaningfully contributes to philosophy, as I say. I suspect I probably won the debate, but...honestly this is a choice between two outcomes I endorse.

You're right that I didn't show he's made a worthwhile contribution to the field of philosophy, if by 'field' you mean 'body of knowledge'. My argument was that his contribution was to the practice of philosophy. I think the debate subject implies both are at stake, but that may have been an angle Ec could have approached my argument from (but didn't).

phyllo wrote:On the other hand, Uccisore unnecessarily conceded some critical points and he was not able to show that you made a worthwhile contribution to the field of philosophy. I think that he should have pursued your reformulation of the Golden Rule. That is just convoluted and obscure enough to qualify as a worthwhile contribution.

Yeah, showing that he made a worthwhile contribution to philosophy was the harder of the two sides to demonstrate by far, since in all the ways that he imagines he's contributed something, he pretty clearly hasn't. I wanted to be sincere- I didn't want to take some point of his I thought was bullshit, like his weird golden rule formulation, and merely pretend it was worthwhile. The idea that somebody can contribute to a field through bad-example seems legit to me, and since Ec is pretty much the paradigmatic case of a bad philosopher, I went with it. There's a lot of points I could have made but I played conservative- since Ecmandu ignored the majority of my points, the better strategy seemed to reiterate them than to make even more points. I'd rather have one solid argument that never gets refuted than make a different argument every day, and open up the possibility that one has a vulnerability.

The ironic thing about the debate is that Ec could have won very easily. I gave him the side in the debate that everybody but him already agreed with. All he had to do was be honest for once in his life, and say "Look at my behavior guys. Look at all the mistakes I've made, look at all the nonsense I've spewed. Look at all the times I've had to be corrected on the most basic of things," and I would have conceded that he had the stronger case. But when instead of being honest he went the "I'm a fool in the sense everybody is, I've contributed nothing in the sense that nobody has," route, I knew that his admission of being a worthless fool (while nonetheless appreciated) would not ultimately satisfy me.

So things went I in a direction I like- the two sides of the debate are EITHER ecmandu is a worthless fool without any original ideas as he says, or else he merely appears to be a fool and that appearence is the only way he meaningfully contributes to philosophy, as I say. I suspect I probably won the debate, but...honestly this is a choice between two outcomes I endorse.

That wasn't the condition of the debate Uccisore... if I argued I was a fool in the sense you elaborated, I would have been banned. I was given a debate where if I won or lost i would be banned, so you held all the cards. Remember this, if I'm saved.

Ecmandu wrote:That wasn't the condition of the debate Uccisore... if I argued I was a fool in the sense you elaborated, I would have been banned. I was given a debate where if I won or lost i would be banned, so you held all the cards. Remember this, if I'm saved.

Where in the world did you get the idea that you would be banned if you admitted you were a fool? It was actually the only way for you to win and save yourself. Lots of people here seem like fools, and they don't get banned. Lots of people here no doubt think I'm a fool, and I'm the longest running admin the place has ever had (as far as I know).

I thought that was odd from the start, but of course I'm not going to help you when you're my debate opponent so I just let you keep thinking it.

Ecmandu wrote:That wasn't the condition of the debate Uccisore... if I argued I was a fool in the sense you elaborated, I would have been banned. I was given a debate where if I won or lost i would be banned, so you held all the cards. Remember this, if I'm saved.

Where in the world did you get the idea that you would be banned if you admitted you were a fool? It was actually the only way for you to win and save yourself. Lots of people here seem like fools, and they don't get banned. Lots of people here no doubt think I'm a fool, and I'm the longest running admin the place has ever had (as far as I know).

I thought that was odd from the start, but of course I'm not going to help you when you're my debate opponent so I just let you keep thinking it.

Obviously, the paradox went over your head, but not mine. If I argued I was a fool, I didn't deserve to be on these boards because I lost the debate, and if I argued I had anything worthwhile to contribute to philosophy I would be banned for losing the debate... notice how everyone else said it was a paradox. I thought you chose this paradox intentionally, apparently, you're pleading dumb on this one. But I had to outsmart this paradox. That's where i stood in the debate, and that's why you held all the cards, and I'm sure everyone in the discussions forums knows this.

Ecmandu wrote:Obviously, the paradox went over your head, but not mine. If I argued I was a fool, I didn't deserve to be on these boards because I lost the debate,

If you argued you were a fool, you would have won the debate, not lost. You deserving to be here has nothing to do with anything. If people got banned based on whether or not I think they deserve to be here, it would be a much quieter place I assure you.

Ecmandu wrote:Obviously, the paradox went over your head, but not mine. If I argued I was a fool, I didn't deserve to be on these boards because I lost the debate,

If you argued you were a fool, you would have won the debate, not lost. You deserving to be here has nothing to do with anything. If people got banned based on whether or not I think they deserve to be here, it would be a much quieter place I assure you.

I thought you chose this paradox intentionally, apparently, you're pleading dumb on this one.

All I wanted was to watch you call yourself a fool so I could have a good laugh. And I did. You demanding Carleas to create a real debate out of this was surprise that just made it even funnier. You seem to think I had something important at stake here or some great point to make. I was just bored and feeling sadistic. "The time I got somebody to spend three days arguing that he was a fool" will be a fun story to tell regardless of what happens next, so thanks for that.

Actually that's not true Uccisore... the conditions were "if I lost the debate I'd be banned" Calling myself a moron and not worthy of posting here is LOSING THE DEBATE.... that's bannable, because I'd be admitting I was a hopeless troll and will continue to be so. If I win the debate, I prove I have something worthwhile to contribute to philosophy and still get banned. EVERYONE in the discussions forums knew this Uccisore. I PM'ed some of them, and even Carleas HIMSELF said it was a paradox. I had to be a billion times smarter than you to win this debate. That was your handicap, and whether you realized it or not, were intelligent enough or not to realize that was my ACTUAL handicap, it was my ACTUAL handicap, and all the people in discussion know it too. So you can play dumb or not. Either way, I had to outdebate you on a level so much higher than you can possibly muster that it's absurd.

Ecmandu wrote:Actually that's not true Uccisore... the conditions were "if I lost the debate I'd be banned" Calling myself a moron and not worthy of posting here is LOSING THE DEBATE....

Huh. Wow, your mind is twisted up like a pretzel. Oh well, we'll see how things go.

Read the thread for discussions Uccisore... Carleas himself called it a paradox. Read it and weep. The amount of intelligence it took to outdebate you is not a level of intelligence you possess Uccisore. And I could do it by even calling myself a fool who had nothing to contribute worthwhile to philosophy. If the paradox went over your head, it just demonstrates that EVERYONE in the discussion forums is a better philosopher than you... and without contradiction, they can all be fools.

The problem here, is the debate was about proving You were a fool. Now proving character(istics) brings in the paradox point blank. Is the proof about whether The fool is of semantics or syntax? Was the argument about whether You are, or simply acting in accordance how a fool should act. Once the

connotation serves an image of the later, You have not proved it. I am afraid that the only fool proof way to argue that position is to make foolishness non differentiable from a fool. Was it differentiable to the extent, as not to raise doubts as to whether You were on or the other , then the conclusion would have won in Your favor.

[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance

In answer to your prayersincere, the centre ofyour circle here,i stand ; and , withouttaking thought,-i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-asyou be menThis: Re-Creation. With abow,Then, your obedient

Orb wrote:The problem here, is the debate was about proving You were a fool. Now proving character(istics) brings in the paradox point blank. Is the proof about whether The fool is of semantics or syntax? Was the argument about whether You are, or simply acting in accordance how a fool should act. Once the connotation serves an image of the later, You have not proved it. I am afraid that the only fool proof way to argue that position is to make foolishness non differentiable from a fool. Was it differentiable to the extent, as not to raise doubts as to whether You were on or the other , then the conclusion would have won in Your favor.

I think the only way to resolve this, is to put it to a vote to the participants. I don't think Carleas would want to put himself in the position to judge although I could be wrong.

Uccisore never took the debate that far... though he could have. I could have argued that the judges couldn't judge the debate as my last card, and forced a draw. As it stands, Uccisore is against the argument that we are all fools in one way or another, and thus we are all fools. But we have specializations in the context of all being fools, and my specialization is being a better philosopher, debater and thinker than Uccisore, even though I am still a fool, by his definition, and also my later definition.

If wisdom is recognition of foolishness then what better way to achieve wisdom then to recognize what is foolish?

I would argue that someone who has demonstrated wisdom has had to pass through foolishness somewhere along the way in order to recognize it. Perhaps I am limited in my sensibility by I don't sense another way along the path to a destination of wisdom.

If the journey to wisdom must pass through foolishness; else it could not be recognized as such, is it debatable that anyone who demonstrates wisdom has not also been a fool as requirement?

The real fool is one who can not admit their path to any wisdom they might claim.Let those without transgression be the judge. IOW: It's a work in progress and we seen bound to a nature of making mistakes.

Yet it is not our propensity for mistake making that is the sole determination or our humanity but also our capacity to learn from them.

It seems we are quite capable of the demonstration of both concurrently, there is the old axiom that warns of being penny wise and pound foolish.

If wisdom is recognition of foolishness then what better way to achieve wisdom then to recognize what is foolish?

I would argue that someone who has demonstrated wisdom has had to pass through foolishness somewhere along the way in order to recognize it. Perhaps I am limited in my sensibility by I don't sense another way along the path to a destination of wisdom.

If the journey to wisdom must pass through foolishness; else it could not be recognized as such, is it debatable that anyone who demonstrates wisdom has not also been a fool as requirement?

The real fool is one who can not admit their path to any wisdom they might claim.Let those without transgression be the judge. IOW: It's a work in progress and we seen bound to a nature of making mistakes.

Yet it is not our propensity for mistake making that is the sole determination or our humanity but also our capacity to learn from them.

It seems we are quite capable of the demonstration of both concurrently, there is the old axiom that warns of being penny wise and pound foolish.

This was the other paradox, if I argued effectively that i was a fool on Uccisores terms, I'd no longer be a fool, and be banned. So I had to argue that we're all fools with different specializations to force a draw or a win, without running into the paradox.

Ecmandu wrote:This was the other paradox, if I argued effectively that i was a fool on Uccisores terms, I'd no longer be a fool, and be banned. So I had to argue that we're all fools with different specializations to force a draw or a win, without running into the paradox.

Let me be more articulate on this... the problem of the debate may be the solution to the debate. I showed that I am both a moron and a better debater than uccisore... this means that I am not a moron... but because I proved I am not a moron, I have proven that I am also a moron. It's the regressive form of the paradox, the context being that I didn't want to get banned, so by proving I'm not a moron, makes me a moron as well. Thus Carleas cannot decide who won or lost, and has to call a draw. If I were the judge, knowing all the paradoxes involved, that's how I'd judge it.

You have to know you held all the cards Ucccisore. So if this even comes to a draw, I have humiliated you, like you have humiliated so many posters on this board without warrant. You need a personality check... and the ability to be logical check. Think about it... you held every card in the deck... if i am saved, even on a draw, you are humiliated. You chose the debate, you chose the conditions... you went for the least honorable debate you could have picked, which means even if I pull a draw, you look like the asshole you deserve to look like with respect to posters on this board. And there's ALOT of them. Maybe your just not as smart as you think you are.

One more... look at my posting history. Have I ever berated a poster as much as uccisore. NO. And the reason is not only because of uccisore's obsession with stalking me and berating me, but his tendency to do this to other posters as well... without merit. So I took a risk, and this opportunity, to humiliate Uccisore on even terms to show him how much he's actually stupid for doing this to us all. Think about how the other Mods show respect for their posters. And then think about Uccisore. Even if I get banned you will lose uccisore... and that's my final revenge, everyone will know you are a sham of a Mod, and maybe you'll act differently towards your fellow posters. That's called a genius of game theory, of which you are not uccisore, but maybe an old dog can learn new tricks... so I leave it at that.

Ecmandu wrote:This was the other paradox, if I argued effectively that i was a fool on Uccisores terms, I'd no longer be a fool, and be banned. So I had to argue that we're all fools with different specializations to force a draw or a win, without running into the paradox.

You could have just used the truth instead of making up a new definition of 'fool' in an attempt to strategize your way out of honesty. I mean, since the judge is still deliberating it's a little odd to admit that you violated the terms of the debate subject now. If I were you, I would have waited until after the decision to announce "Yeah guize, I totally ignored the definition of 'fool' stipulated for the debate in an attempt to avoid the subject and force a draw".

Ecmandu wrote:This was the other paradox, if I argued effectively that i was a fool on Uccisores terms, I'd no longer be a fool, and be banned. So I had to argue that we're all fools with different specializations to force a draw or a win, without running into the paradox.

You could have just used the truth instead of making up a new definition of 'fool' in an attempt to strategize your way out of honesty. I mean, since the judge is still deliberating it's a little odd to admit that you violated the terms of the debate subject now. If I were you, I would have waited until after the decision to announce "Yeah guize, I totally ignored the definition of 'fool' stipulated for the debate in an attempt to avoid the subject and force a draw".

Carleas gave it to you... which means I'm banned. if he had given it to me, I would have been banned. I get to laugh all the way to my grave as you two ban me.

As it should be. Thanks, Carleas, I don't disagree with much of anything you said.

So Ecmandu, I said once before that I'm not going to ban anybody just because they lost a debate. You never had to fear that. But ultimately the choice is yours- you lost the debate fair and square, now, will you accept a ban as we agreed, or give me some excuse as to why it doesn't 'really count'? If you make an excuse or ask me not to, I won't ban you- but you have to welsh out of our deal right here in front of everybody, I won't be reading any private messages.

Uccisore wrote:As it should be. Thanks, Carleas, I don't disagree with much of anything you said.

So Ecmandu, I said once before that I'm not going to ban anybody just because they lost a debate. You never had to fear that. But ultimately the choice is yours- you lost the debate fair and square, now, will you accept a ban as we agreed, or give me some excuse as to why it doesn't 'really count'? If you make an excuse or ask me not to, I won't ban you- but you have to welsh out of our deal right here in front of everybody, I won't be reading any private messages.

My only argument was already submitted, it was a paradox, therefor a decision cannot be made, unless you are smarter than the paradox.

The paradox is simple:

If I argue I'm a fool (and by definition a hopeless troll), I'm not longer a fool, if you argue I'm a fool I am a fool (and by definition a hopeless troll).